Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Connecticut (BB-18)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 18:42, 21 February 2009 [1].

USS Connecticut (BB-18)[edit]

Nominator(s): the_ed17

Connecticut was a battleship that was obsolete soon after her commissioning; however, she was still the flagship of the Great White Fleet. This fleet returned to the U.S. on 22 February 1909. Do you see why I am nominating this? :) Any and all comments are welcome. Special thanks go to (in no particular order): Maralia and Bellhalla for copyediting and formatting, La Pianista and User:Milkbreath for copyediting, and TomStar81 for writing the lead. Thanks guys (and gals :)! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am taking part in the WikiCup. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I will not put an objection at this time. However, the dates are not put in the American style as required by the MoS for American pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The US Military uses the international D-M-Y style. See the other ship FAs: USS Iowa (BB-61), USS New Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63), USS Wisconsin (BB-64), USS Nevada (BB-36), etc. -MBK004 01:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the US Military isn't a separate language per MoS, so I don't know if that is acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm the man behind nearly all of the Iowa class battleship FAs, and I can tell you that no one objects to the format used, so its ok. Even Raul654 and SandyGeorga have never voiced a complaint over it. I therefore think that under the circumstances this is not a cause for concern. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • With the recent problems over linked dating and date formatting, I would like to see it added to the MoS to cover all bases. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, but I can't read minds: can you clarify what "it" is in the above statement? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
              • "The US Military uses the international D-M-Y style" Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ottava, there is ample consensus for U.S. military articles, especially for ship articles (the category with which I am most familiar), to use dmy formatting. Presented as evidence of this, the list that follows, containing Featured Articles on U.S. Navy and/or military-related ships (i.e. "American" topics) that use the dmy format. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. military-related ship FAs using dmy date format
                • I think I wasn't clear - I would like the MoS on dating to include a notice about the military formatting. I did not see one when I last checked. MoS (wide community) tends to trump WikiProjects on the matter. Please initiate the appropriate changes so this wont be a concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I haven't seen anyone else raise this objection at any of the FACs that I have initiated (nine from the list above). To me, that seems more of a site-wide consensus than merely a WikiProject consensus. If it is that much of a concern to you, I would suggest that you initiate the changes. From my view, consensus strongly supports the current date style. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is already reflected in WP:MOSNUM#Strong national ties to a topic: "articles on the modern U.S. military often use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field." Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but the term "modern" is mostly used to refer to post Vietnam. This ship was decommissioned in 1923. Hence, the problem. Perhaps the line should be altered or have a second sentence added to allow for this? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright Violation Concerns: Found here, these are also part of the current diff. The whole article will need to be checked, or at least passages citing Albertson, Mark (2007). U.S.S. Connecticut: Constitution State Battleship. Mustang, Oklahoma: Tate Publishing. This is not a Public Domain source and is copyrighted in the United States. Limited previews are available via Google Books to cross check wording. I noticed the issue because there was a flair to the language that is used commonly by those trying to spice up a history for mass market and rarely is used naturally on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ottava, I must respectfully disagree; I've read through three paragraphs, and found nothing to suggest that there are, indeed, copyright violations. I believe you are overanalyzing the information. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The quoted passages contain the very definition of a copyright violation. Lets break one down: Your version: "Based out of Philadelphia, Connecticut trained midshipman for the next eleven months." and the original version "Connecticut spent the next eleven months based out of Philadelphia training midshipmen". "Based out of Philadelphia" is a phrase that may be able to be put on its own if you could claim not to have seen this source. However, you link to the source and use the rest of the sentence in there. You cannot reuse phrases. That is a copyright violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your assertion, Ottava, of "copyright violation" is off base. If entire paragraphs or sections of the article were copied word-for-word, that would be a copyright violation. What you described would be plagiarism, if true, and, since the phrase in question was changed some nine hours (if I'm calculating the UTC times correctly) before you posted your comment, may be moot. By the way, several editors, myself included, have copy-edited this article, and while I can't speak for any of the others, I did not have, nor did I access online, the Albertson work. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Any copyright problem is a problem and means that this cannot be an FA. Any sentences lifted from a source in this manner is a problem. This needs to be fixed immediately. By having some, the rest needs to be checked. If you want, I can go through every sentence and every paragraph and find out just how much phrasing is taken out of the sources without quoting them properly. Furthermore, when I looked at the current diff as posted above when I posted, the copyright problem was still there. I -randomly- chose a section and a source to find and I found that. I will check again in a few days and comb through the rest of the page. If I find any more lifted text, I will be upset. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Please don't think I'm trying to trivialize or minimize your objections. Both copyright violations and plagiarism are legitimate reasons to oppose an FAC. However, In this case, from what evidence you have presented there is clearly not a copyright violation. (I struck part of my previous comment. I see now that you were giving an example from the version referenced in your earlier post.) — Bellhalla (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering! For obvious reasons, it would be crucial to know if there is any more text that is 'too close' to the book; so while it is my opinion that there are no more plagiarism violations, it would be good thing to check and get over this hump. Thanks again and cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright law normally regards the same wording for three or more consecutive words in a work known to the composer of the lines as copyright infringment. As I have demonstrated above, not only was this the case, but phrases were simply reorganized and kept the infringing material. As someone who has to keep the eye out for copyrighted material, I know that a student, presenting the work, might get a second chance if what I presented above was the only content present that copied the phrasing. However, anything else would be an expulsion from the school. Wikipedia is more giving and allows people the chance to fix the writing. I am mostly posting this because it needs to be fixed regardless if its an FAC or not. Please check through the phrasing and make sure that duplicate phrases do not exist. Also, a good rule of thumb is that one sentence in Wikipedia should be a summary of one paragraph from a text at most. This would force you to condense and create an original summation instead of having the opportunity of using similar phrasing. A good essay on the matter is Wikipedia:Quotations. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, feel free to go through it, however, I do not believe that there are any more problems. My thoughts were nicely summarized by Bellhalla: "while it is certainly best to not duplicate any sentences or phrases verbatim, I honestly don't see anything so unique about the phrases given as examples that they could only have come from the source." This is my view on this also. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Error - "The battleship captains paid their respects to President Theodore Roosevelt on the presidential yacht Mayflower, and all the ships weighed anchor and departed at 10:00. They passed in review before the President, and then began south." According to this, the source, the presidential ship "passed in review", not their ships, and that this happened before/during they paid their respects to the President. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More - Citation for "After stopping at Manila in the Philippines, the fleet set course for Yokohama, Japan. They encountered a typhoon on the way on 12 October, but no ships were lost; the fleet was only delayed 24 hours." should be 57-58 and not p. 57. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

  • File:USS Connecticut BB-18.jpg is not likely {{PD-USGov-Navy}} or {{PD-USGov}}. Photographer, Fred W. Kelsey, is not a military personel,[2] and the Naval Historical Center only obtained the photo through the courtesy of R.W. Cunningham in 1971.[3] Perhaps contact with the NHC to find out the copyright status of this picture specifically would be best. Was the copyrights transferred from Kelsey to Cunningham to NHC, who declare it public domain? Was the picture published before 1923? Did Kelsey pass away before 1938? Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:PostcardUSSConnecticutBB18pre1922.jpg has no verifiable publishing date or source to verify if it is public domain...
    • Whoops, replaced with File:USS Connecticut (BB 8) transferring.jpg. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The new picture might also not be {{PD-USGov-Navy}}. It was donated by Dr. Mark Kulikowski, who might be the Professor of Polish History on Google searches. The picture could have been taken by a journalist or former-soldier and passed down from generation to generation or sold on the collector's market until it reached Kulikowski's hands. As such, per above, clarification would have to be sought with the NHC on why it is in public domain. Jappalang (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All other images have been checked and corrected to reflect an indisputable public domain status. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First image replaced with an okay image. Second image and its replacement removed. New image, File:12-45 mk5 Connecticut gun pic.jpg, has its license verified by OTRS. All images okay. Jappalang (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well Written, Well Cited, Well Done. No complaints on this end. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent detail, prose, sourcing, illustrations - well done. Minor queries/suggestions:
    • Design: "The main armor would be thinner because armor would be distributed throughout the ship." Do we mean "evenly distributed"? If so, think it helps to add that.
      • I don't think that it was evenly distributed, as it "tapered off" towards the bow and stern.
    • Early career: "Connecticut sailed out of New York and into the ocean for the first time on 15 December 1906". I don't think "and into the ocean" adds much and would happily see it deleted; if you feel you need something there, how "and into open sea" or some such?
      • Removed.
    • Flagship of the Great White Fleet: Don't know that Roosevelt needs to be linked in successive sections (here and in Early career).
      • De-linked.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NocturneNoir (talk · contribs)

  • "she was the last lead ship of any class of pre-dreadnought battleship commissioned by the United States Navy." -> Battleship should be plural.
  • "Connecticut served as a flagship for the Jamestown Exposition commemorating the 300th anniversary of the founding of the Jamestown colony." seems to imply to me that there were multiple Jamestown Expositions and that the one the Connecticut participated in commemorated the 300th anniversary. Try "Connecticut served as a flagship for the Jamestown Exposition, which commemorated the 300th anniversary of the founding of the Jamestown colony."
  • "Connecticut participated in several flag-waving exercises intended to protect American citizens abroad, until she was pressed into service as a troop transport at the end of World War I to expedite the return of American Expeditionary Forces from France." Comma is unnecessary.
  • "The design that evolved into the Connecticut-class battleship was conceived on 6 March 1901 when the Secretary of the Navy[who?] asked the Board on Construction for a study of future battleship designs."
  • "The Board on Construction favored a ship on which 6-inch (150 mm) and 8-inch (200 mm) guns would be replaced by twenty-four newly designed 7-inch (180 mm) guns, which were the most powerful guns whose shells could be handled by one person" -> "whose"? Are guns people now? Maybe "the most powerful guns with shells that could be handled by one person."
  • In general, the prose from the "Design" section is a bit choppy due to the overuse of the sentence structure as follows: "The blah blah blah..."
  • "This[clarification needed] was later rejected because the reduction in anti-torpedo boat guns was too drastic."
  • "the debate was not ended" -> "the debate was still not over." I would also just end the sentence there instead of using a hyphen to break up two independent clauses.
  • "with three more added on 2 March 1903:" -> "and three more were added on 2 March 1903:"
  • "Connecticut was named as the official host for the vessels that were visiting from other countries." I always thought it was "host of" but I may be mistaken.
  • "They passed in review before the President, and then began south." -> "Then began traveling south."
  • "They approached Puerto Rico on the 20th, caught sight of Venezuela on the 22nd, and later dropped anchor in Port of Spain, the capital of Trinidad,[36] making the first port visit of the Great White Fleet.", yet "Port-of-Spain had a total of 32 U.S. Navy ships in the harbor, making it "[resemble] a U.S. Navy base."" Is it Port of Spain or Port-of-Spain?
  • "Connecticut next visited Cherbourg, France, where she welcomed visitors from the town and also hosted the commander-in-chief of the French Navy[who?] and a delegation of his officers"
  • "After visiting all four, they[who?] made their way back through the canal and headed for home."
  • Refs 9-11 have messed up appearances due to usage of [].

NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 03:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Everything should be done except for the French Naval commander - I have no idea who he is. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Made a mistake on my review, thanks to Matisse for catching that one. Anyway, my concerns have been covered (few people will care about a random French Naval commander), so I will support. Good work. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 04:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Everything has been addressed, an excellent and informative article. -MBK004 06:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've read through about half of the article (haven't gotten to the rest yet, due to time constraints) and this appears to be a well-written, well-researched article. I hope this gets promoted in time for the February 22 TFA. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 07:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Excellent article. One point though:
    • "Connecticut then led all of these warships around Tail-of-the-Horseshoe Lightship on 22 February to pass in review of President Roosevelt, then anchored off Old Point Comfort" - the current wording makes it sound like Roosevelt himself was anchored off Old Point Comfort. Perhaps it'd be better to split the sentence after Roosevelt. Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/USS_Connecticut_(BB-18)&oldid=1126596578"